Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the KJV in the Book of Mormon?

[_Blixa]

The Bible could not have been in the hat because I would think that the pages would be difficult to turn from inside a hat.

I don't really have anything to say to this; I just wanted to repost it.

You got yourself a great sig line there!

I'd like to use this example in class--about the pitfalls of crudely literalist thinking. But the back story would be too much of an encumbrance. Pity.

[_GoodK]

For myself in critically examining the issue it's very clear that we need to put a Bible in the room for the creation of the Book of Mormon.

Phaedrus

Quite right. That was my point too. But no Bible was in the room with Joseph Smith as he dictated the Book of Mormon. The Bible could not have been in the hat because I would think that the pages would be difficult to turn from inside a hat. The critics can not have their pickle and eat it too. To rattle off Isiah at the top of head, would have been quite a feat for any human. Such a gift would have made Joseph Smith rich it he took the show on the road.

This is the oddest bit of nonsense I've read for a while. Are you really admitting that Joseph Smith used a hat to translate? Or that critics can't say he did because the Bible wouldn't have fit? Either way, this argument is hardly as clever as you think.

[_asbestosman]

I've seen several clowns get out of one little car. If the hat were made out of the same stuff, I think a clown could have been down there turning the pages. Heaven forbid someone might actually memorize the appropriate passages. No, memorizing the scriptures can only be accomplished by Muslims who memorize the entire Koran.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I've seen several clowns get out of one little car. If the hat were made out of the same stuff, I think a clown could have been down there turning the pages. Heaven forbid someone might actually memorize the appropriate passages. No, memorizing the scriptures can only be accomplished by Muslims who memorize the entire Koran.

I usually vote for the memorization thesis, as well. The only problem with that is that the deliberate focus on changing italicized portions suggests that Joseph Smith would either have to have memorized the locations of the italics or have composed the Book of Mormon ahead of time and then memorized the pre-composed version.

I should add that even some apologists will concede that Joseph Smith used a Bible.

[_asbestosman]

I usually vote for the memorization thesis, as well. The only problem with that is that the deliberate focus on changing italicized portions suggests that Joseph Smith would either have to have memorized the locations of the italics or have composed the Book of Mormon ahead of time and then memorized the pre-composed version.

Out of curiosity, is there any evidence that Joseph Smith had a photographic memory?

Personally I don't think it was memorization or a magic trick, but I haven't studied all the issues around it. The specifics of the translation never interested me that much. I just thought I'd point out other obvious possibilities (magician's tricks, and memorization).

[_charity]

Charity,

Wesley P. Walters has identified some 200 anachronistic Book of Mormon quotations from the New Testament. If you absolutely require the full list, I suppose I can scan it and email it to you. But since you don't appear to have read the David P. Wright essay yet, maybe I shouldn't bother? The following are a few from the Tanners:

CK, you can color me closed minded, and I know you will.

Wesley P. Walters does not have a good track record. He was so rabidly anti-Mormon that he, a man of the cloth, stole from a courthouse. So why would I take his list on its face? I really don't have time to check his sources.

David Wright checked out with me in one of the first paragraphs as he glibly dismissed a substantial number of variants in this sentence: "One point of evidence, usually set aside in considering the source of the BM Isaiah, is the general prevalence of KJV language in it. This must not be ignored. The reality is that, except for relatively small number of variants, the BM text follows the KJV word for word."

As you should know from the Tvetdnes article. less than half of the verses are word for word. That dismissal shows his bias, and lack of scholarship.

And the Tanners? Just as you discount anything that comes from FARMS or FAIR, I don't cotton much to anything cranked out of an anti-Mormon "ministry."

[_AmazingDisgrace]

Joseph's dictation of the Book of Mormon did not have witnesses present for the entire process. There was always a scribe, but at least some of the time, there was a curtain between the scribe and Joseph. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have been able to use a Bible for part of the dictation. The Isaiah chapters don't make up a very large portion of the text, despite how it may feel when reading through them :)

[_Sethbag]

Charity: I'm still waiting: what is Isaiah 48 doing in first nephi when it was written after Cryus sent the hebrews back to Judah: it was written after Lehi sailed for the new world.

That is a question to ask Nephi about any of his writings. Did God give it to him in vision, inspiration, revelation. It was what it was when it got to Joseph Smith. AFter Mormon had put it together.

You know what I just heard?

"I realize I had a bloody glove, and blood in my car, and had owned a knife just like the one that killed my wife and her lover, and there are literally mountains of evidence that I did it, but your Honor it wasn't me - it was Columbian drug lords who, for some reason known only to them, wanted my wife and her lover killed!"

You don't even try to defend this. You merely assert that the Book of Mormon really is true, so the Lord must have revealed the contents of Isaiah 48 to Nephi hundreds of years before he revealed the exact same stuff to Isaiah, so that Nephi could write it down. Or, perhaps Mormon did it.

ROFL. This is so amazing to watch. It's like you're standing right there, in front of a pile of evidence that everyone else seems to be able to see, and you kind of squint your eyes a little, look around, and resolutely declare "nope, I don't see anything here".

[Analytics]

David Wright checked out with me in one of the first paragraphs as he glibly dismissed a substantial number of variants in this sentence: "One point of evidence, usually set aside in considering the source of the BM Isaiah, is the general prevalence of KJV language in it. This must not be ignored. The reality is that, except for relatively small number of variants, the BM text follows the KJV word for word."

As you should know from the Tvetdnes article. less than half of the verses are word for word. That dismissal shows his bias, and lack of scholarship.

Interesting. In fact, I'll bet none of the chapters are word for word. ;)

More seriously, I think that while he may be wrong as far as semantics goes, his point may still stand. For example, if I only change a word here or there while copying another student's homework, do you think the teacher will discipline me for Plagiarism? What if I did so for a translation assignment of, say, a Shakespearean play into German (I just change one word here and there). Do you think people would be able to tell that I basically copied the translation off of someone else?

[_BishopRic]

Charity: I'm still waiting: what is Isaiah 48 doing in first nephi when it was written after Cryus sent the hebrews back to Judah: it was written after Lehi sailed for the new world.

That is a question to ask Nephi about any of his writings. Did God give it to him in vision, inspiration, revelation. It was what it was when it got to Joseph Smith. AFter Mormon had put it together.

Now Charity, do you really believe you are following your own charge here:

"All you have are suppositions for a lack. Use logic. That is consistent."

???